Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	good_a	hate_v	hatred_n	2,544	5	9.6222	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69227	A sermon preached at Paules Crosse, the sixt of February. 1596 In which are discussed these three conclusions. 1 It is not the will of God that all men should be saued. 2 The absolute will of God, and his secret decree from all eternitie is the cause why some are predestined to saluation, others to destruction, and not any foresight of faith, or good workes in the one, or infidelitie, neglect, or contempt in the other. 3 Christ died not effectually for all. By Iohn Doue, Doctor of Diuinitie.	Dove, John, 1560 or 61-1618.	1597 (1597)	STC 7087; ESTC S111946	36,520	88

ex praeuisis operibus for the good workes which God foresawe in him as also of Huberus and other Lutherans of our times the brochers of straunge opinions which holde that some are predestinated to bee vessels of honour but expreuisa fide because of theyr fayth which God did foresee to bee in them others of dishonour but ex mero contemptu aut neglectu non ex Dei decreto not by anie decree of God but because hee had in them a foresight eyther of neglect or contempt as if the causes of theyr predestination were in themselues and not in God whereas in deede these wordes Not by workes but by him that calleth do ende all controuersie shewing that the whole causes of election and reprobation are in himselfe and not in vs and therefore not long of any fayth or workes of ours And as Saint Augustine sayth Si futura opera quae Deus vtique praesciebat vellet intelligi nequaquam diceret non ex operibus sed ex futuris operibus eoque modo istam solueret quaestionem immo nullam quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem If the Apostle did vnderstād any good works foreseene in Iacob to be the cause why God did loue him he would not say as he doth Not of workes but he would rather say God loued him because of his workes which hee foresaw in him and so he would not onely ende this controuersie but make it so plaine that it should be indeed without all controuersie Againe the Apostle doth explaine his owne meaning that he loued Iacob and hated Esau without respect of any thing in them worthy of loue or hatred by the obiection following where he sayth What shall wee say then Is there iniquitie with God God forbid Because it seemeth to flesh and blood not to stand with the iustice of God to condemne men before they are borne but to be crueltie in him to hate thē which neuer did euill therefore the apostle preuenteth that obiection and purgeth God of that suspition which men might cōceiue against him which he should not need to do if God did loue or hate vpon anie foresight of faith or good works in the one or neglect and contempt in the other for that were in the iudgement of men a sufficient cause of loue and hatred without all shewe of iniustice Thirdly he maketh it yet more plaine by the wordes which follow vers 18. where he saith Hee will haue mercie on whom he will haue mercie and whom he will he hardeneth He maketh two causes of saluation and damnation and both subordinate to an higher and more principall cause the subordinate cause of saluation beeing mercye because none is saued but by mercie of damnation hardening or obdurating for they which be damned are hardened in their sinnes that they cannot repent and both those inferior causes are subordinate to his will as the highest cause and onely in himselfe and these inferiour causes doe both proceed from his will And finally when he sayth It is not meaning election in him that willeth that is in the indeuors of man nor in him that runneth that is in the workes of men but in God onely that sheweth mercy hee teacheth that the onely rule of predestination and reprobation whereby God is directed and the only law which he tieth himself to obserue therin is his will so that no part of our electiō is ascribed to our selues or any thing which may be in vs. Secondly to answere this obiection Is there iniquitie with God God forbid He cleareth that two maner of waies First God is not vniust by being partiall in sauing hee dooth not erre in his choyse by preferring Iacob before Esau when the case of them both was one both vnborne neither of them had done good why hee should bee chosen or euill why hee should be refused For God will haue mercy on whom he will haue mercy Non potest peccare in dolectu cuius voluntas est iusticiae regula Hee cannot erre in his choyse when that is iust whatso-soeuer is his will When two theeues haue committed murther and both deserued death may not the King without suspition of iniustice shewe mercie in pardoning the one and doe iudgement in executing the other Iacob and Esau were both as we all are by nature the children of wrath could not God iustly haue compassion on Iacob and let Esau die in his sinnes That anie are saued it is his mercie and hee may haue mercie on whom hee will It is worthie of obseruation that the Apostle dooth say when they had done neither good nor euill But hee dooth not say when they were neither good nor euill For true it is that they had done neither good nor euill because they were vnborne and therefore coulde not commit anie actuall sinne but they were both of them euill for both were infected with originall sinne in their mothers wombe which they drewe by inheritance from Isaac theyr father and Rebecca their mother and therefore sayeth Augustine Ambo gemini natura filijirae nascebantur nullis quidem operibus proprijs sed originaliter in Adam vinculo damnationis obstricti Iacobum igitur dilexit per miscricordiam gratuitam Esaum odit per iudicium debitum quod quum deberetur ambobus in altero tantum alter agnouit non de suis meritis sibi gloriandum sed de diuinae misericordiae largitate quia non est volentis neque currentis sed Dei miserentis Cap. 94. Remanentibus reprobis in aeterna poena sancti scient planius quid illis contulerit gratia tum vebus ipsis apparebit quod Psal 100. scriptum est misericordiam iudicium tibi cantabo domine quia nisi per indebitam misericordiam nemo saluatur nisi per debitum iudicium nemo dānatur Cap. 95. Ex duobus paruulis alter assumiter per dei misericordiam alter relinquitur per Dei iudicium in quo is qui assumitur agnoscit quid sibi per iudicium debebatur nisi misericordia subueniret Cur iste assumitur magis quam ille cum vna causa esset ambobus eadē est causa cur apud quosdam nō sunt factae virtutes nempe in Tiro Sidone Mat. 11. Quae si factae fuissent poenitentiam egissent sed in Corazin Bethsaida factae sunt qui non erant credituri Cap. 99. Quum Dei misericordiam commendasset dicens non est volentis neque currentis c. deinde iudiciū commendat quoniam in quo non fit misericordia non fit iniquitas sed iudicium They were both by nature the children of wrath not by reason of any offence which thēselues had cōmitted but for y ● first offēce of Adam they were in state of damnation as all the rest of Adams posteritie wherefore that God loued Iacob it was free mercy and vndeserued grace that hee hated Esau it was no wrong but iustice a punishment due vnto his sinnes which punishment being due vnto them

the dew of heauen and fatnesse of the earth and plentie of wheat and wine But with the same blessing he blessed Esau though not in so great and ample maner saying Behold the fatnesse of the earth shall bee thy dwelling place and thou shalt haue of the dewe of heauen from aboue But all these things are temporall respects 3 If these things had been spirituall and to be vnderstood of the life to come then Iacob and Esau standing in opposition one against the other in so much that one should be chosen the other damned then both of them could not haue beene blessed That I may answer with as great breuitie as I can The Argument doth not follow that because Saint Paule dooth discourse of whole nations and not of particular persons therefore these words do make against predestination For if we do well consider the drift and scope of the Apostle in this place we shall find the contrarie most plainely to appeare For although the argument which the Apostle handleth in that Chapter and the two other Chapters following is a speciall discourse of the generall apostacie and reiection of the Iewes and the vocation of the Gentiles yet by a kinde of occupation he entreth into a particular tract of predestination although it be obiter and by the way as a question most necessary to be touched for the right vnderstanding of a place of Scripture which seemeth at the first sight flatly to make agaynst this doctrine which he hath deliuered concerning the generall reiection of the Iewes and so hee inintreateth of predestination for the preuenting of an obiection For in the beginning of the same chapter hauing lamented the reiecting of his kindred the Iewes hee maketh this obiection with himselfe If it bee so that God hath reiected the Iewes and called the Gentiles in their place it should seem to be contrarie to the couenant which he made with Abraham for his promise to Abraham was otherwise and that his worde should be of none effect To which obiection he answereth that albeit the generall reiecting of the Iewes yet the promise which the Lorde made to Abrahaem remaineth sure and stedfast for as much as notwithstanding their general apostacy and infidelitie the Lorde in his secret counsaile chooseth of them some in particular whom hee listeth whom hee hath before predestinated to saluation For hee made the promise to Abraham and his seede not in a generalitie to all his seede according to the flesh but in particular to all those of his seede which should be his children according to the fayth euen as hee was the father of the faithfull And therefore the state of this question thus standeth That this grace is offered to all the posteritie of Abraham without exception that hee woulde bee their God and they should be his people but it is sealed onely to the faythfull the vertue and efficacie thereof appertaineth onely vnto them of the seed of Abraham which be of the number of Gods elect which are predestinated which hee proueth by two examples the one of Abraham and the other of Isaac Concerning Abraham hee hadde two sonnes Isaac and Ismael though Ismael were the sonne of Abraham as well as Isaac yea and circumcised before Isaac had receyued the circumcision yet by the ordinance of God was Isaac onely reputed the sonne of Abraham and the heire of the promise and Ismael reiected hee yeeldeth this reason because they which are the children according to the flesh are not as children but only the children of the promise are accounted for the seede Concerning Isaac also he had two sonnes Esau and Iacob both they were twinnes and nearer one to the other then Isaac and Ismael because they had both the same father and mother yet before either was borne one was chosen the other refused to shewe that notwithstanding the generall reiection of the Iewes yet God kept his promise with Abraham forasmuch as it concerneth onelye those children of Abraham which are according to faith and not according to the flesh alone whom he predestinated before they were borne not for any foresight of any good thing in them but of his owne good will and pleasure because it was his will and pleasure which in deed are in number but a fewe beeing compared with the great multitude of them whom he hath hated although they be of the stock of Abraham And as for that loue and hatred wherwith hee loued one and hated the other although it be historically vnderstoode as it is in Moses and Malachy consisteth of temporall and worldly blessings yet in this Epistle of Saint Paule it cannot otherwise be constered then of the kingdome of heauen and of the life to come as Paule himselfe the best interpreter of himselfe dooth in the wordes which followe explaine his meaning For he sheweth that the hatred of Esau was such as the hardening of Pharao a reprobate not onely in this life but also in the life to come Moreouer hee tearmeth thē which are so hated the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction and them which were so loued as Iacob was loued the vessels of mercie prepared to glorie saying God to shewe his wrath and to make his power knowen doth suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction and to declare the riches of his glorie vpon the vessels of mercie which he hath prepared vnto glorie Furthermore least wee should bee like the Iewes which when the vaile was put vppon Moses his face did not looke to the end of that which should be abolished and therefore theyr mindes are hardened and till this day doth remaine the same couering vntaken away in the reading of the olde Testament wee must not be ignorant that it receyueth two interpretations the one hystoricall the other mysticall as Sixtus Senensis and Saint Augustine did well obserue As for example Christ speaketh of Iudas in this maner I speake not of you all I know whom I haue chosen but it is that the scripture might be fulfilled he that eateth bread with me hath lifted vp his heele against me But if ye conferre these wordes with the wordes of the prophet from whence they are taken they do hystorically concerne the person of Dauid and his acquaintance and cannot bee vnderstoode of Christ and Iudas because Christ was without sinne but in the fourth verse of that Psalme he sayth Haue mercy on me and heale my soule for I haue sinned against thee Yet Christ in the new Testament dooth mystically expounde it of himselfe the treason of Iudas against his person Likewise Peter interpreteth this saying of Dauid Let his habitation be void no man dwell therein of Iudas where in that place the prophet speaketh in the plural nūber not of one but of many saying Let their habition be voide and none dwell in their tents speaking of the whole nation of the Iewes that the iust punishment of God should be iustly inflicted

Samuel Huberus a Lutheran which affirmeth that this place of Saint Paule concerning Esau and Iacob is not meant of any particular men but of whole nations not of heauenly things but temporall blessings and therefore maketh nothing to proue predestination The second of the Papists which inferre this absurditie that if God hardeneth men to doo euill then God is the authour of sinne The thirde of the Atheistes and carnall men which denye the prouidence of GOD and dispute with themselues in this manner If GOD haue predestinated mee to Hell then in vayne is it for mee to leade a godlye lyfe If hee haue predestinated mee to saluation what neede I to confourme my selfe vnto his VVoorde For his will and purpose must needes take place I can not auoyde his secrete Decree it is lyke the law of the Persians it can not be altered Touching the first For as much as it is written I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau Samuel Huberus a Lutheran first distinguisheth the ambiguitie of the names Easu and Iacob as also of loue and hatred affirming that Esau and Iacob are to bee vnderstood collectiue not distributiue not personally but nationally as by Iacob is ment all the posteritie of Iacob and by Esau all the families and ofsprings of Esau as for example oft times in the Scripture Israel Edom Ismael Amon Moab Iuda Leui are vnderstoode not of particular men but of whole nations so likewise the loue of God to the one hatred to the other is not to be vnderstood of spiritual graces but temporall blessings not in the life to come but in this life not to belong to their owne persons but to appertaine to their posteritie and thereupon he inferreth this conclusion that these wordes of the Apostle doo make nothing at all either to proue election or reprobation And because this doctrine of Saint Paule is quoted out of Malachy and that of Malachy out of Genesis he examineth these three places of scripture and by the coherence of the text seemeth to alleage many arguments to that purpose His arguments out of Paule are these 14. 1. A great prerogatiue is graunted to the Iewes aboue other people but they are the whole posteritie of Iacob 2. That prerogatiue is drawne from the couenant which the Lord did make with Abraham which couenant is belonging to many and not appropriated to Abraham alone 3 He deriueth this prerogatiue from Isaac to Iacob and separateth Esau frō it as one which was no partaker of that blessing but what is this prerogatiue which is giuen to Iacob aboue Esau namely that in his posteritie should be continued the true worship of God that in his posteritie the Messias should be born that in his posteritie should be established a temporall kingdome neither was that prerogatiue and glorie alwayes to continue in Iacobs posteritie but only for a time for as much as at the length the Iewes which were Iacobs posteritie were reiected and and the Gentiles chosen in their place 4 Whereas is written The elder shall serue the yonger it was neuer verified of the person of Esau nor during the life of Iacob because Esau did neuer serue his brother Iacob but only his posteritie did serue his brothers posteritie when the Israelites had brought the Edomites into subiection 5 He sayth Whom the Lord hath chosen not onely of the Iewes but also of the Gentiles where hee mentioneth whole nations and kinreds 6 He vrgeth the authoritie of Ose saying I will call them my people which are not my people 7 The authoritie of Esay Though the number of the children were as the sandes of the sea but a remnant shall be saued 8 Hee opposeth all the Gentiles to the whole nation of the Iewes saying The Gentiles which followed not righteousnes haue obtained vnto righteousnes which is of faith but Israel which followed the law of righteousnesse coulde not attaine to the lawe of righteousnesse 9 He sheweth that Iacob hath not the true knowledge of God which coulde not without impietie bee vnderstoode of the person of Iacob 10 Out of Deut. 32. and Esay 63. He commendeth the obedience of the Gentiles and reprehendeth the contumacy of the Iewes 11 he saith Hath God cast away his people god forbid 12 He sheweth that of the posterity of Iacob some are saued but the greatest part are gone astray 13 He compareth together the zeale of both nations as well Iewes as Gentiles 14 Hee concludeth of both Nations in in this manner As you in tymes past haue not beleeued God yet haue obtayned mercie through their vnbeleefe so now haue they not beleeued God by the mercy shewed vnto you that they also may receyue mercie As for the Prophet Malachy where he sayth I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau he expoundeth himself and declareth with what kinde of hatred he hated Esau Namely he made his mountaines waste and his heritage a wildernesse for dragons which was neuer brought to passe while Esau liued but long after his death And notwithstāding he bloued Iacob yet he abhorreth his vnthankfulnesse which ingratitude could not be obiected to his persō but to his posterity as in that whole chap. he discourseth not of one in particular but of a whole nation To come to the examination of the words contained in the 25. of Gen. The lord said to Rebecca Two Nations are in thy wombe two maner of people shall bee diuided out of thy bowels and the one people shalbe mightier then the other the elder shall serue the yonger Where it is most manifest by the coherence of the wordes that hee speaketh not of persons but of peoples so that where hee sayeth The elder shall serue the younger he meaneth the elder people shall serue the younger people or the posteritie of the elder sonne shal serue the posteritie of his younger brother In another place Isaac saith to Iacob Let peoples bee thy seruants and Nations bowe to thee bee Lord ouer thy brethren and let thy mothers Children honour thee But this can not bee verifyed of the person of Iacob because his brethren did not bow vnto him neither were people his seruants neither did his mothers children honour him but he serued others himselfe was a fugitiue in Mesapotomia and did obeysance to his brother Esau but onely the posteritie of Esau serued the posteritie of Iacob when they were by Dauid subdued and brought into subiection As for the loue of the one and hatred of the other it consisted onelie in temporall things which he proueth by these three reasons 1 One could not be a seruant to the other in the life to come because there is freedome and no seruice euerie one is noua creatura in Domino a new creature in the Lord. 2 When Isaac blessed Iacob hee said Behold the smell of my sonne is as the smell of a field which the Lorde hath blessed God giue thee therefore of

vpon thē for crucifying of Christ that their city should bee sacked they dispersed by the Roman Emperor And seeing the soundest interpretatiō of the scriptures is by other places of scripture y t these blessings cursings loue hatred which in the old testament are historicall are in y e new testamēt mistical as in this promise made to Abrahā Isaac Iacob and their posteritie it is made manifest by the apostle saying By faith Abraham abode in the land of promise as in a strange land as one that dwelt in tents with Isaac and Iacob heires with him of the same promise for he looked for a foundation whose builder and maker is god But I come to the 2. obiectiō Rom. 9. 17. 18. The Apostle writeth in this maner For the scripture saith vnto Pharao for this purpose I haue stirred thee vp that I might shew my power in thee and that my name might be declared throughout all earth Therfore he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth What then if God hardned the heart of Pharao and caused him to sin is not God the author of sin Nothing lesse forasmuch as God is goodnesse it selfe his very essence is good and nothing can proceed from him but that which is exceeding good True it is as the Prophet sayth Non est malum in vrbe quod non fecit Dominus There is no euill in the citie but the Lord did it The lord doth not onely suffer the wicked to do euill but himselfe is a doer and principall agent therein I knowe there bee some of greater modestie then iudgement in diuinity which for reuerence to the person of God do affirme that all the actions of sathan and the wicked are not done by the will but onely by the permission sufferance of God by which opinion of theirs they fall into two absurdities the one is they deny his prouidence which doth so moderat dispose of al things that nothing can come to passe otherwise thē he hath apointed and decreed before The other is they derogate much detract from his omnipotencie as if he should suffer any thing to be don against his wil. I know some haue trāslated the lords praier in this maner suffer vs not to be led into tentatiō but the Greeke text hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is Lead vs not into temptation so that if we be tempted he is the leader And likewise whereas it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He gaue them vp to their hearts lusts vnto vncleannesse and to a reprobate sense hee gaue them vp vnto vile affections some translated it Permisit eos libidinibus and he suffred them to follow their owne lusts These things as they proceed frō God are good but in respect of the men which doo them they are euill Saint Augustine saith Deus bene vtitur malis tanquam summè bonus ad eorum damnationem quos iuste praedestinauit ad poenam illorum salutem quos digne praedestinauit ad gratiam Vult peccata nō vt probet sed vt iudicium suum exequatur sic malis instrumentis bene vtitur Vsus est Iudae proditione pontificum crudelitate ad illorum perniciem sed ad nostram salutem Pharaonem indurauit ad suam ipsius gloriam ad eius poenam sed aliud fuit illius aliud Dei institutum God which is infinitely good doth vse the ministerie and seruice of them which are euill to their damnation whome hee hath iustly predestinated to death and to their saluation whom he hath predestinated to glory He will haue offences to be committed not as if hee did allowe and approue them but that by them hee might execute his iudgement and so he doth make vse of the euill as his instruments himselfe being good He vsed the treason of Iudas and the crueltie of the Iewes to their destruction but to our saluation he hardened Pharao to his owne glorie but for Pharaos punishment But the intent and purpose of Pharao was not the same which God intended though the action which God and Pharao did were the same yet in God it was good in Pharao it was euill because the intent of them both was not the same Sometime God causeth men to sinne for their punishment because oftentimes hee punisheth one sinne with an other when man hath sinned grieuously God causeth him to commit a more grieuous sinne or a punishment of his former sinne and so one sinne is heaped vpon an other that at the day of iudgement their damnatiō may be the greater if they do not repent As Saint Augustine obserueth As for example Rom. 1. The Israelites did serue the creature for the Creator which is blessed for euer Amen There is guilt of sinne but the Lord did punish this sinne of theirs by causing them to commit an other sinne for he gaue them ouer into a repobat sense to do those abhominations which were not conuenient as it is particularly specified in the text and so they receiued the reward of their errour So likewise speaking of them which were to bee seduced by Antichrist They loued not the truth that they might be saued that was a grieuous sin the Lord punished it with another sin therefore God shall send them strong delusions that they should beleeue lies Micheas saw the Lord sitting vpon a throne the host of heauen stood on his right hand on his left the Lord said Who will seduce Achab that he may go and fall at Ramoth Gilead Then there came forth a spirit and stoode before the Lord and said I will seduce him I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets then the Lord saide thou shalt seduce him and thou shalt preuaile Now therefore behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of al those thy prophets and the Lord hath appointed euill against thee Therfore in a word I answer according as it is a doctrine receiued in the schooles Deus est author mali sed mali poenae non mali culpa quatenus est in hominibus culpa est quatenus proficiscitur à Deo paena est culpa non est iustae vindictae deus author est Satan minister God is the authour of euill but of what euill our schoole learning teacheth vs to distinguish of euils one is a sinne the other a punishment God is the cause wee do euill but as wee doo it it is sinne as hee doth cause it it is no sin but a punishment for our sinnes And so as it is a punishment or reuenge God is the authour Sathan is the executor of the same Thomas Aquinas sheweth that in sinne two things must bee considered which are Actio ac actionis vitium res qualitas rei actio quatenus res opus est bona est à Deo proficiscitur quatenus vitiosa est non à